EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What's the Deal with Fatties - All the Time?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What's the Deal with Fatties - All the Time? - Page 7

post #181 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by prickly View Post
How is it possible that no one's tried a cheesy sex metaphor yet here (like, "skis are like women, it's more fun when you try all different shapes and sizes," etc.)?

Vis. sleds, tobags, saucers, check this out: http://www.madriverrocket.com/
Thats awesome. Makes me wonder if my knee board would be fun on the snow!
I haven't used it behind the boat in a Loooooong time!
post #182 of 198
I spent most of the winter on a pair of '06/'07 Mantras. My intention was to use them on soft snow days here on the east coast. We didn't get much hard snow this year, so I just kept skiing them because they were so much fun to ski. I now have a couple of pair of skinnier skis (around 80mm under foot) hanging in my garage that I know I won't ever use again. It's the widest ski I've ever used. I'm not sure that I need anything wider, but then, I have no frame of reference.
So I headed off to Switzerland in March and discovered that most of the Euros (including instructors) are skiing big mountains on short, skinny carvers. I was loving the Mantras while arcing big turns at higher speeds while Fritz and his pals were poking along on their little carvers. Was I missing something? Or were they?
In the US, I do have a problem with posers who have all the wide ski, big mountain gear and never go where they can put it to best use, or aren't capable of skiing it (the ski or the snow & terrain) when they get there. In Switzerland, the tourists stay on the pistes on their short carvers so you don't seem to have the poser issue. Even off piste, the Euros don't go as fat as the US guys do. I spent a week touring in Switzerland and there was next to nothing being used that I would consider wide. Mid 80's under the foot was about as big as it got. None of the guides were using anything that we would consider fat. We skied new, deep, untracked snow for 5 days straight, and I didn't see one pair of fat skis. I also didn't see one pair of Marker Dukes in two weeks of resort and off piste/touring in Europe. It was 90%+ Fritschi with a smattering of Dynafit, Naxo and Silvretta. I'm guessing that the Duke is a US thing only.
Anyway, I don't really care what people ski on. There's no right answer that applies to everyone and there's no reason to dictate to people that they've got it all wrong. It's great to have so many excellent choices. A lot of it, however, is marketing hype and after a while people start to believe their own BS.
post #183 of 198
I feel obligated to chip in my 2 cents on this thread because it has gotten so much play. I am also a bit surprised that people care so much about what other people ride. I, for one, bought my first fatter skis this year (Gotama) and ski primarily in Utah. I've now skied them 13 days in a row b/c I've been on soft snow every day. There was one day when it was cruddy hard pack where I wished I had brought narrower skis b/c it was a lot of work in those conditions. Other than that though, every single day they were more fun and more user friendly in as little as 2" of snow. They will carve quite nicely if one is up on top of them and really tipping them on edge. No...they are not a race carver, but its simply untrue for people to say that they won't carve groomers. I ski almost exclusively off piste and I only spend significant time on groomers when the snow sucks and I want to pound bumps. Only then do I pull out the narrower skis.

In the end, I could care less what anyone rides on and like to look around at all the skis. Currently I love to check out the wild rockered skis that are out there. I don't buy based on the latest trend, instead I listen and ask questions of people who are better skiers than me to understand what changes in technology will enhance both my skiing and my fun. I tend to be a student of the sport--both in terms of technique, gear as well as understanding basic backcountry and weather principles. I do all of it for fun and for safety...but not to impress anyone. After all...isnt this supposed to be fun?
post #184 of 198
ski w/ whatever you have. hone your skills to allow you to use your skis on whatever conditions you might encounter.

do some skis have qualities that make them excel in certain conditions and not in others? sure. could you tackle any condition with a little extra work? sure again. the anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that some skiers enjoy powder on narrower, stiffer skis and some do quite well on hard pack and ice on softer, fatter skis-in spite of the qualities of their skis.

then again, i bet the majority of the skiers on this site could ski on 2x4 strapped to their feet and still look good!
post #185 of 198
IMO, most of the sound and fury here revolves around what people mean by words like "carving" or "fat." No, a 105 mm ski can't carve as tight a radius as quickly as a 66 mm race ski. Does that mean the 105 can't carve, or that easy going long radius turns somehow don't count? Only if the carve police want to arbitrarily define carving as something only carving skis do. Or skis under 90 mm, or skis made on Thursday in Austria by left handed males.

Similarly, is a 88 mm ski "fat?" well, no for the fat police who snicker at anything under 110. But they seldom think past waist width. If you compare the weight per sq cm of a small woman skiing a 88 and a large man skiing a 110, odds are they'll be about the same. The narrow ski IS fat for the light skier. Or the "fat" ski isn't really for the 220 lb guy. Hell, I ski a B1 sometimes which was considered a great backside/powder ski as recently as 2003. It gets flat out silly to argue about what's "fat."

Point is, it's fun for a while, but some of you guys get waaay too rigid about your definitions. Makes me wonder about your toilet training...
post #186 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
Thats awesome. Makes me wonder if my knee board would be fun on the snow!
I haven't used it behind the boat in a Loooooong time!

ask and you shall recieve!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U87x7PiWBe0
post #187 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by choucas View Post
I spent most of the winter on a pair of '06/'07 Mantras. My intention was to use them on soft snow days here on the east coast. We didn't get much hard snow this year, so I just kept skiing them because they were so much fun to ski. I now have a couple of pair of skinnier skis (around 80mm under foot) hanging in my garage that I know I won't ever use again. It's the widest ski I've ever used. I'm not sure that I need anything wider, but then, I have no frame of reference.
So I headed off to Switzerland in March and discovered that most of the Euros (including instructors) are skiing big mountains on short, skinny carvers. I was loving the Mantras while arcing big turns at higher speeds while Fritz and his pals were poking along on their little carvers. Was I missing something? Or were they?
In the US, I do have a problem with posers who have all the wide ski, big mountain gear and never go where they can put it to best use, or aren't capable of skiing it (the ski or the snow & terrain) when they get there. In Switzerland, the tourists stay on the pistes on their short carvers so you don't seem to have the poser issue. Even off piste, the Euros don't go as fat as the US guys do. I spent a week touring in Switzerland and there was next to nothing being used that I would consider wide. Mid 80's under the foot was about as big as it got. None of the guides were using anything that we would consider fat. We skied new, deep, untracked snow for 5 days straight, and I didn't see one pair of fat skis. I also didn't see one pair of Marker Dukes in two weeks of resort and off piste/touring in Europe. It was 90%+ Fritschi with a smattering of Dynafit, Naxo and Silvretta. I'm guessing that the Duke is a US thing only.
Anyway, I don't really care what people ski on. There's no right answer that applies to everyone and there's no reason to dictate to people that they've got it all wrong. It's great to have so many excellent choices. A lot of it, however, is marketing hype and after a while people start to believe their own BS.
I've had much the same experience as you ... bought Volkl Auras (women's Mantras) this season expecting to use them only on deep days, but I ended up really enjoying them in everything but hard bumps. And although I enjoy bumps, I'm over hard bumps anyway.

We were in Austria in March, and the first two days we were all on piste due to rain and then avy danger. I saw one pair of Mantras, and everything else was narrow. The third day I did see fatter skis, when we went off piste in Zurs.

But one of the most fun days (and the day I expected to trade out my Auras for something narrower, but overslept and didn't) was the second day, the day after the rain -- because of the exceptional European grooming, the hard refrozen groomed slush was a complete blast on the long and moderately stiff Auras. Did they perform like a race ski? No, I'm sure they didn't ... but they gripped like crazy, and I made huge fast turns all morning. Austrian ski instructor had barked "More turns!" at me the day before, but I ignored him.

As for Dukes etc., this was our helicopter:

post #188 of 198
Gripped like Crazy is a relative term.
post #189 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Gripped like Crazy is a relative term.
Yes. It is. They gave me all the grip I needed.

Later in the day I even took them in a little race course, and placed third in our group. The Stocklis and the Superspeeds were obviously superior in the gates. Not to mention their operators, but I was only a couple tenths behind Superspeed guy.
post #190 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by locknload View Post
In the end, I could care less what anyone rides on out there...

I listen and ask questions of people who are better skiers than me...

...I do all of it for fun and for safety...but not to impress anyone
Great post. In particular your positions above are noteworthy. First, the truly ‘better’ skiers one should pattern after would not submit a bias on an open forum full of internet skiers they know nothing about. Second, obviously by now you have surmised that this forum is all about ‘impressing’ people which is fun and entertaining and the very reason many engage [as I do now :]. As for Skinny v. Fat?...can't advise anyone I have not skied with but I do know what works for me
post #191 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoWork View Post
that's cuz nobody likes fat chicks. Fat skis, on the other hand are freakin awesome.
The thread that keeps on giving
post #192 of 198
Great Thread. It is helping me (an uppermidwesterner) get a handle on what ski to bring on my annual trip to Utah. One ski that will 1. be OK on the groomed when I ski with the family 2. handle deep powder (should I luck out) 3. do great on the left over powder (that I get most of) 4. be stable (firm?) enough to ski the steep (Baldy Chutes)

Don't want to hijack this thread so if anyone has opinions (and there seems to be a lot of them on this forum) please respond on the thread below.

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=69077

Thanks -- the seeker of the elusive "do it all ski"
post #193 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by skugrud View Post
Great Thread. It is helping me (an uppermidwesterner) get a handle on what ski to bring on my annual trip to Utah. One ski that will 1. be OK on the groomed when I ski with the family 2. handle deep powder (should I luck out) 3. do great on the left over powder (that I get most of) 4. be stable (firm?) enough to ski the steep (Baldy Chutes)

Don't want to hijack this thread so if anyone has opinions (and there seems to be a lot of them on this forum) please respond on the thread below.

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=69077

Thanks -- the seeker of the elusive "do it all ski"
Without a doubt: Dynastar XXL.
post #194 of 198
The best part of this thread is I have been skiing about 3 times since it started and I have seen this thing become alive before my very eyes.

I now notice the back packing/ tele guy skiing groomers. Believe me there are alot of them. Maybe it looks cool and is a great glute and quad workout?

I have also seen the skinny waist race skier guy wearing a one-piece , refuse to wear a helmet or hat (sunglasses only), on his subtle race skis.

Pure comedy. I could care less either way since my mountain crew is all knuckle dragging snowboarders tha can not traverse without complaining about how hard it is.

No matter what it is fun.

I like the fatties and consider my Watea's my all mountain groomer carver that goes up to about 7" of fresh.

What I still do not get is how anyone can say a fattie does not ski well on groomers. What or who does not ski well on groomers?
post #195 of 198
What have I learned from this forum thread? You don't need fat skis to enjoy powder. You can ski with a pack and AT gear in bounds if you aren't doing it just for style (it's good training for skiing with a pack I guess). Gear doesn't make the skier (it's the Indian, not the arrow). My old-school tele buddy skis the gnar on leather boots and skinny skis (most would crap their pants skiing with him on the latest gear).
At least you all are sliding on snow. You could be golfers or rollerbladers!
post #196 of 198
What DCNB said.

But to add... and at least we can all agree on one thing: snowlerblades suck.
post #197 of 198
I feel compeled to post in the important thread
post #198 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoWork View Post
Oh, I'm soooooooooooooooo gonna try that!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What's the Deal with Fatties - All the Time?